Difference between revisions of "Experimental Results"
From EM Drive
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Shawyer Experimental || 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025 || 0.497 || None || 2.45*10^9 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 || 0.003337 || 5640 | |Shawyer Experimental || 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025 || 0.497 || None || 2.45*10^9 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 || 0.003337 || 5640 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | |Shawyer Demo|| 0.187 || 0.28 || 0.17027 || 0.484<ref>Forum posts by [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377281#msg1377281 @phaseshift], [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377650#msg1377650 @Rodal], and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377697#msg1377697 @Rodal] - The Design Factor | + | |Shawyer Demo|| 0.187 || 0.28 || 0.17027 || 0.484<ref>Forum posts by [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377281#msg1377281 @phaseshift], [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377650#msg1377650 @Rodal], and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377697#msg1377697 @Rodal] - The Design Factor is reported as 0.844 in at least three of Shawyer's references; however this number gives a much smaller diameter in conflict with the ratio of the small diameter to the big diameter shown in the picture of the Demonstrator in Shawyer's publications, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo (0.844 instead of 0.484, which results in a small diameter that agrees with the published image). The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor (0.484).</ref> || None || 2.45*10^9 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 0.003337 || 23980 - 72830 |
|- | |- | ||
|Brady a TM Mode|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9326*10^9 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.396 || 0.003337 || 1617.2 | |Brady a TM Mode|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9326*10^9 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.396 || 0.003337 || 1617.2 |
Revision as of 05:58, 26 May 2015
Forces, Power, Frequency and Dimensions
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public and private research labs (NASA Eagleworks, SPR Ltd., and NWPU) is here, along with the reported forces. Note that complete dimensions are not known in most cases, and some had to be determined via indirect methods (e.g., estimation from photographs). See Building for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in compiling these. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.
Description | Cavity Length (m) | bigDiameter (m) | smallDiameter (m) | Design Factor (Shawyer Only) | Dielectric | rfFrequency (1/s) | Power (W) | Q | Force (mN) | Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) | Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) | Force Multiple of Photon Rocket |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cannae Superconducting | 0.03 | 0.220 | 0.200 | None | 1.047*10^9 | 10.5 | 1.1*10^7 | 8-10 | 761.9 - 952.4 | 0.003336 | 228400 - 285500 | |
Shawyer Experimental | 0.156 | 0.16 | 0.1025 | 0.497 | None | 2.45*10^9 | 850 | 5900 | 16 | 18.82 | 0.003337 | 5640 |
Shawyer Demo | 0.187 | 0.28 | 0.17027 | 0.484[1] | None | 2.45*10^9 | 421-1200 | 45000 | 102.30 | 80-243 | 0.003337 | 23980 - 72830 |
Brady a TM Mode | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.9326*10^9 | 16.9 | 7320 | 0.0912 | 5.396 | 0.003337 | 1617.2 | |
Brady b TM Mode | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.9367*10^9 | 16.7 | 18100 | 0.0501 | 3.000 | 0.003337 | 899.12 | |
Brady c TE Mode | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.8804*10^9 | 2.6 | 22000 | 0.05541 | 21.31 | 0.003337 | 6386.7 | |
Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster[2] | 39300 | 170 | 22000 | 0.002 | 0.01176 | 0.003337 | 3.526 |
References
- ↑ Forum posts by @phaseshift, @Rodal, and @Rodal - The Design Factor is reported as 0.844 in at least three of Shawyer's references; however this number gives a much smaller diameter in conflict with the ratio of the small diameter to the big diameter shown in the picture of the Demonstrator in Shawyer's publications, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo (0.844 instead of 0.484, which results in a small diameter that agrees with the published image). The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor (0.484).
- ↑ Forum post by @Rodal - Included here because Prof. Woodward's device is also a propellant-less concept, and because Paul March (NASA) maintains that Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theory might also be, in his opinion, an explanation for thrust for the EM Drive.